JAISON Vs. SAFIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No.8/2012 of the Rent Control Court, Alathur. The aforesaid rent control petition was filed by the respondent herein under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition. According to the petitioner, she bona fide needs the petition schedule building for setting up a stationery business for her husband, who is a dependent on her for the petition schedule building. Her husband was working abroad and now he returned from there and having no avocation at present. Their son also wants to join with the proposed business. Even though she is in vacant possession of another room in the first floor, that room is in a dilapidated condition and not suitable for setting up a stationery business. The room which is situated on the immediate west of the petition schedule building is in the possession of another tenant and she has already taken steps to get the said room also evicted from that tenant. No other vacant rooms are available in the possession of the petitioner. The respondent is not depending on the income from the business in the petition schedule property and several other vacant rooms are available in the locality. So also, rent was in arrears from June, 2011 onwards and the rent is Rs. 850/- per month. On the above aforesaid premises, the petitioner prayed for an order of eviction under the under the Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

(2.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction under both grounds contending that the need projected in the petition is a ruse for eviction only. The petition has been filed with a view to get enhancement in the rate of rent or to let out the building to third party for higher rent. He is prepared to pay off the arrears of rent. The petitioner's husband was working abroad and he has good savings. He does not have any intention to start the business. He is mainly depending upon the income derived from the business which is being carried out in the petition schedule building. No other vacant rooms are available in the locality to shift the business, which is being conducted in the tenanted premises. With the aforesaid pleadings, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the rent control petition.

(3.) On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence which consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and RW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A3. On evaluation of the aforesaid evidence on record, the rent control court dismissed the petition mainly on the findings that there was no sufficient pleadings to the effect that the husband of the petitioner is a dependent on her and the need projected in the petition is not bona fide. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred R.C.A. No.26/2016 before the Rent Control Appellant Authority at Palakkad. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the rent control petition on a finding that there are sufficient pleadings to show the dependency of the husband on the petitioner and the need projected is bona fide. This revision petition has been filed challenging the divergent findings of the courts below on bona fide need and pleadings on dependency.